According to this work of fiction The Bible, God himself doesn't care for the book of Genesis... mostly because it was written by humans that didn't know what the fuck was going on in his head.

The book of Job is unique in that the God character actually speaks -not a profit - not God speaking through someone- it's actually him. Job btw, is actually the "first book" in this fable.

God confronts Job about humans being arrogant little shits who weren't even there when he laid out the firmament and the measurement of time. God was pretty cranky about that... among other things.

God was not happy with this "inspired" shit being attributed to him. But hey... that's what they mean by "creative differences".

Too many cooks can spoil the broth.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.

(08-08-2012 08:38 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote: If however we start to "compromise" to suit "the world", it becomes a problem. A fairly obvious example could be the position towards homosexuals. There are a large number of Christian churches that do no longer frown upon gay marriages etc. So they adapt to become "acceptable".

Every law in the human texts, that were written by humans, in known human contexts, for known human reasons, then changed multiple times, as every scholar knows, that eventually was VOTED in a non-unanimous vote into what became, eventually known as the Bible, and rearranged again, multiple times, and containing many many injunctions which today are considered barbaric, and/or irrelevant, for only cultural reasons, has as it's origin a known cultural context. The idea that any law in the Bible originates from a deity, and is immutable, is simply false.

The proof is as follows :

Gods are not the source of morality. The Platonic Conundrum, (Bucky's negative re-write of Euthyphro's Dilemma).

1. Something is wrong, because god says it's wrong.

2. Why did god say it's wrong ?
3. Did he have a good reason ?

4. If there is no good reason, then it could be right.
5. If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.

6. Could he have said it's right ?
7. If he could not say it's right, then truth and moral value exist apart from god.

8. Is it wrong because god says it's wrong, or is it wrong, because it's objectively wrong, and god had to say that ?
9. Would it be right if god says it's right ?

Conclusions:

If god could not have said it's right, and still be god, then the source of the moral law is not god.
If it would still be wrong even if god says it's right, then the source of morality is not god.

If the source of morality is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance

(BTW, this proof, is also valid for "causality", ie "First Cause", and is also proof of god's non-existence, and non-contingent nature.)

Insufferable know-it-all.
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "I believe Mr. Peanut is the Messiah" -- onlinebiker